A WEEP reader who suffers badly from tinnitus and EMF sensitivity, sent me this comment - "Martin, this article is a sad joke and not helpful at all".

The WEEP reader had missed the point of the article and it is very important that others realize the significance of this CBS news report.

While there may be a few million people who naturally suffer from tinnitus (5 million may be a generous guess). There are very strong reasons to believe that the vast majority of those mentioned in the story (45 million plus) are actually suffering because they are hearing wireless radiation from a variety of different sources.

The ringing noise in the ears seems to be a hearing effect, but it could also involve a neurological or a central nervous system problem that is being caused by wireless radiation. The important thing is that we can now point to a large percentage of the population, to show that wireless radiation is affecting their health.

When you add the 45 million tinnitus sufferers on to the millions who are suffering auto immune diseases, various cancers, headaches, depression etc, the signs are becoming much clearer. Those signs indicate that wireless radiation is causing serious health effects to large numbers of the population.

It is a sad development, but it is what reputable scientists and EMF safety activists have been forecasting for years!

Friday, January 09, 2015

HALT THE EMR NOISE

I've started the petition "U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate and President of the United States: "HALT THE EMR NOISE POLLUTION HARMING HUMANS AND WILDLIFE" and need your help to get it off the ground.

We respectfully request your signature & organization's signature on a Joint Statement (notice attached) that has been endorsed by Oncologist Lennart Hardell.

Dr. Lennart Hardell highly recommends that each NGO & EMF Organization sign this Joint Statement to further the effort to get WHO/IARC to act on the scientific findings & classify RF/EMF radiation as a class 1 carcinogen.

Notice his endorsement here:

"In May 2011 IARC at WHO classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as ‘possible human carcinogen’ Group 2B. The scientific evidence has been strengthened after that and using the so called Hill viewpoints, initially established in the 1960’s on smoking and lung cancer, RF-EMF may now be considered to cause human cancer. Thus, I endorse the initiative by many NGOs to ask IARC for re-evaluation of the cancer classification of RF-EMF. This is important not the least in view of most people exposed to RF-EMF."

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Oncologist and cancer researcher

Department of Oncology, University Hospital

SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden

The attached Joint Statement will be delivered to WHO/IARC, the United Nations, & the Whitehouse preceding delivery of the class 1 petition (reference said petition here) to those same sources.

All who wish to support this, please email back your organization's name & contact information & it will be added to the Joint Statement prior to it's delivery.

Again, thank you so much for your support in this worthwhile endeavor to protect the public, especially our precious children.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate whether microwave exposure would affect the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) signaling pathway to establish whether this plays a role in synaptic plasticity impairment.

METHODS: 48 male Wistar rats were exposed to 30 mW/cm2 microwave for 10 min every other day for three times. Hippocampal structure was observed through H&E staining and transmission electron microscope. PC12 cells were exposed to 30 mW/cm2 microwave for 5 min and the synapse morphology was visualized with scanning electron microscope and atomic force microscope. The release of amino acid neurotransmitters and calcium influx were detected. The expressions of several key NMDAR signaling molecules were evaluated.

While, according to the World Health Organization, no adverse health effects of radio-frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have been established to date, EMF exposure from wireless communication networks is nonetheless often cited as a major cause of public concern and is frequently given considerable media coverage. This article presents the results of a new survey on RF-EMF exposure risk perception together with a comprehensive overview of the EMF footprint of existing and emerging networks. On the basis of these findings, we then put forward the rationale for EMF-aware networking. Subsequently, we highlight the gaps in existing systems, which impede EMF-aware networking, and outline the key concepts of the recently launched European Union (EU) Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) Integrated Project Low-EMF Exposure Future Networks (LEXNET): a new, all-encompassing, population-based metric of exposure and ways it can be used for low-EMF, quality of service (QoS)-aware network optimization.

As the Eurobarometer Study [1] indicates, public concern about EMF exposure is quite stable: an astonishing 46% of Europeans are still concerned or very concerned about EMF health risks, without, however, distinguishing between various sources of EMF (e.g., access points versus hand-held devices) and their relative contribution to the overall exposure ...

From this brief consideration, three important questions emerge: What are the different sources of exposure? Which factors determine the strength of exposure inthe eyes of the public? How do people link exposure to risk?

To study these issues, we conducted an in-depth survey, and we report here some of its key findings. Data were collected from April to May 2013 in France, Germany, Portugal, and Spain using an online survey tool. A total of 1,978 respondents participated in this survey (mean age: 36 years; gender distribution: 60% female and 40% male).

Regarding the perceived health hazards of various usage scenarios, our respondents evaluated base stations on a school roof as the most dangerous (see Figure 1). On a five-point Likert scale (1 = not dangerous, and 5 = very dangerous), the mean score of a base station is 3.35. Using a mobile phone for calls is perceived as less dangerous, averaging a mean of 2.87. A somewhat lower score characterizes a laptop used on the lap; here, the mean danger perception is 2.63.

This finding is consistent with the perception of exposure strength due to various EMF sources (given in Figure 2). The respondents had to evaluate them on a five-point Likert scale. Figure 2 clearly indicates that base stations are seen as the strongest EMF exposure source (mobile communication masts: mean = 3.86; followed by microwave ovens: mean = 3.31; and mobile phones: mean = 3.21).

Finally, a regression analysis of various exposure scenarios on health concerns demonstrates that the distance to the exposure source is not a significant predictor of these concerns, as evidenced by the values of regression coefficients given in Table 1. Significant predictors are shown to be the number of exposure sources, the duration of the exposure, and the frequency of exposure.

The above results indicate that the risk perceptions of the general public and the underlying health concerns are guided by subjective models of EMF impact, which underestimate near-field exposure and overestimate far-field exposure. People are more concerned about base stations than about all other RF-EMF sources. This distortion may explain why the exposure incurred by personal EMF-emitting devices such as laptops and cell phones is not a key factor in public risk perception.

This article presented an overview of how the deployment of existing and emerging wireless networks impacts the resulting EMF levels. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the main focus of the existing EMF exposure evaluation framework is conformance testing using worst-case scenarios, in which wireless network equipment and mobile terminals transmit at maximum power levels. The mounting worries about the exposure of end users to EMFs could change the users’ view of QoS, making EMF exposure an integral part of day-to-day network performance. What is more, the mechanics of this high-QoS versus low-EMF tradeoff are different for different applications, services, and usage scenarios. From the provided state-of-the-art overview, a clear need has surfaced for low-EMF, QoSawarenetworking, which LEXNET will tackle.

In particular, LEXNET will focus on developing novel radio-link technologies and incorporating them into deployment of adaptive, self-organizing network topologies and intelligent positioning of access points, with a view to reducing the EMF exposure while maintaining the QoS. Novel techniques are needed for the management of new and the existing network topologies whereby the EMF exposure is optimized jointly with the QoS. As has been demonstrated, the existing network engineering services are very limited in this respect, and the main challenge is therefore to include EMF into the optimization process by designing and implementing a population-based exposure metric, the exposure index, that takes into account exposure due to both personal devices and network transmitters.It is important to stress that LEXNET is not redefining safety limits or reevaluating the effects of RF-EMF on human health. All of the techniques LEXNET is developing are compliant with existing safety regulations. The uniqueness of the LEXNET approach is that it builds upon existing metrics by introducing the novel exposure index to quantify population exposure. This will enable the development of network management technologies that reduce EMF exposure without compromising the user QoS.

Welcome to the Matrix: Enslaved by Technology and the Internet of Things

By John W. Whitehead

January 07, 2015

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” ― Philip K. Dick

If ever Americans sell their birthright, it will be for the promise of expediency and comfort delivered by way of blazingly fast Internet, cell phone signals that never drop a call, thermostats that keep us at the perfect temperature without our having to raise a finger, and entertainment that can be simultaneously streamed to our TVs, tablets and cell phones.

Likewise, if ever we find ourselves in bondage, we will have only ourselves to blame for having forged the chains through our own lassitude, laziness and abject reliance on internet-connected gadgets and gizmos that render us wholly irrelevant.

Indeed, while most of us are consumed with our selfies and trying to keep up with what our so-called friends are posting on Facebook, the megacorporation Google has been busily partnering with the National Security Agency (NSA), the Pentagon, and other governmental agencies to develop a new “human” species, so to speak.

In other words, Google—a neural network that approximates a global brain—is fusing with the human mind in a phenomenon that is called “singularity,” and they’ve hired transhumanist scientist Ray Kurzweil to do just that. Google will know the answer to your question before you have asked it, Kurzweil said. “It will have read every email you will ever have written, every document, every idle thought you’ve ever tapped into a search-engine box. It will know you better than your intimate partner does. Better, perhaps, than even yourself.”

But here’s the catch: the NSA and all other government agencies will also know you better than yourself. As William Binney, one of the highest-level whistleblowers to ever emerge from the NSA said, “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to delineate the effect of chronic electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from radar on plasma melatonin and serotonin levels in occupationally exposed military personnel.

Subjects and Methods: 166 male military personnel participated in the study out of which only 155 joined for blood draw. They were divided into three sets viz control group (n=68), exposure group I (n=40) exposed to 8-12GHz and exposure group II (n=58) working with radar at 12.5-18GHz frequency. All the three groups were further split into two groups according to their years of service (up to 10 years and > 10 years) in order to investigate the effect of years of exposure from radar. Melatonin and serotonin levels were estimated by enzyme immunoassay in fasting blood samples collected during 0600-0700h. EMF measurements were recorded at different locations using Satimo EME Guard 'Personal Exposure Meter' and Narda 'Broad Band Field Meter'.

Results: The group I exposed population registered a minor though not significant decrease in plasma melatonin concentration while the other group II exposed population registered statistically significant decline in melatonin concentration when compared with controls. Highly significant increase in plasma serotonin levels was found in exposure group II when compared to control whereas marginal non-significant rise was also registered in exposure group I in comparison to control. Exposure in terms of length of service up to 10 years did not produce any significant effect in the indoleamine levels in both the exposure groups when they were compared with their respective control groups. Whereas, length of service greater than 10 years was observed to decrease and increase respectively the melatonin and serotonin concentration significantly in exposure group II but not in exposure group I. However, correlation test did not yield any significant association between years of service and melatonin or serotonin levels respectively in both the exposure sets I and II. No significant association was observed between melatonin and serotonin levels as well.

Conclusion: The study shows the EMF ability to influence plasma melatonin and serotonin concentration in radar workers, significantly in 12.5-18GHz range with service period greater than 10 years.

The EMF levels measured in power density (W/m2) were monitored with EME Guard personal exposure meter (frequency range 27MHz to 40GHz with upper and lower detection limit of 200V/m and 5V/m respectively) and Broad Band Field Meter (frequency range 100KHz to 60GHz). Measurements were undertaken inside the radar cabins and outside the radar at different distances of occupational exposures of the personnel. The power density of microwave radiation level inside the radar cabin and outside at various locations around the radar vehicle, where a worker of Group I worked during the course of normal duty ranged from 0.24 – 0.77W/m2. Subjects of Group II were exposed to microwave power density level of 0.1 – 15.6W/m2 inside and outside the radar vehicle.

Despite the measured EMF levels found to be well within the acceptable limits of occupational exposure of 50W/m2 for controlled environments (1.5 to 150GHz) (ICNIRP guidelines, 1998, 2002; Canada Safety Code 6, 2009; NRPB, 2004), changes in pineal indoleamine concentrations with radar exposure in terms of both frequency band and years of service have been observed. The significantly depressed antioxidant level of melatonin in exposure group II signifies the potential of EMF exposure combination at Ku frequency band and mean exposure period of 11.5 years in terms of length of service in inducing stress. At the same time, the slight fall registered in group I may be due to comparatively lower cumulative exposure both in terms of frequency band and length of service (mean 8.3 years) to which the group might have acclimatized as apparent by the non-significant difference when compared with the reference group. Correlation analysis however, did not yield any significant association between years of service and melatonin or serotonin levels in both the exposure sets I and II ...

In light of the observed alterations in melatonin and serotonin found in both the frequency bands of radar and service category though, significant only in the higher frequency band and in greater than 10 years of service duration, our study do imply the EMF potential to alter the plasma indoleamine levels in radar workers. The results need further corroboration; hence, the results should be interpreted with caution. Given the significance of these pineal secretions for organisms, further studies with better EMF characterization and standardization are crucial. In this regard, future studies should target occupational groups with cohort or cross-sectional studies with more time point measurements in order to find the pattern of melatonin and serotonin response with EMF experience. Upcoming studies should also address the effect of EMF on all the components of melatonin biosynthesis in order to concretize the findings in addition to taking into account possible confounders. For the time being, precautionary approach should be adopted and unnecessary exposures should be checked, along with suitable protective measures where such exposures are unavoidable and considerably high.

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., DirectorCenter for Family and Community HealthSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California, Berkeley

Wall Street’s Cell Phone Litigation Problem

Gordon Noble, Finance and Investment for Good, Nov 14, 2014It is 1987 and Gordon Gekko stands on a windswept beach with a cell phone to his ear. He is talking on the world’s first mobile phone – the Motorola DynaTac 8000X. It wasn’t cheap back then costing $3,995 – which in today’s terms is close to $9,000. Not surprising only the wealthiest could afford these phones, and Wall Street was the epicenter of an industry that became a global phenomenon over the next decades.

Wall Street execs were the first to use cell phones. They have used them the longest and the most intensively. They were the first to upgrade to more powerful units. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that it is Wall Street firms that are the ‘canary in the mine’ in terms of litigation around the health impacts of long term cell phone use.

The links between brain tumours and cell phones are hotly contested. As telcos fight a growing public relations battle that is flaring through social media, a little known legal case has continued to make its way through US courts.

On 8th August 2014 Judge Frederick H. Weisberg issued a judgement in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia in a long running case alleging that brain tumors of the litigants were caused by cell phone use.

Weisberg did not make a judgement on whether cell phones cause cancer. What he was examining is whether the evidence that was being presented by trial lawyers was permissible under the Court’s rules. To do this he went through an exhaustive process under the Dyas/Frye test which is essentially about whether an expert uses a methodology that is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community to arrive at his opinion.

Weisberg ruled that a number of expert witnesses were permitted to present evidence in the next stage of the trial. But he also made some thought provoking comments:

“If there is even a reasonable possibility that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, the time for action in the public health and regulatory sectors is upon us. Even though the financial and social cost of restricting such devices would be significant, those costs pale in comparison to the cost in human lives from doing nothing, only to discover thirty or forty years from now that the early signs were pointing in the right direction. If the probability of carcinogenicity is low, but the magnitude of the potential harm is high, good public policy dictates that the risk should not be ignored.”

The significance of Weisberg’s judgement is that he has inadvertently provided an independent verification of research. The research that he has admitted to the next stage of the court process will no doubt be challenged, but the methodology that the researchers have used has been accepted by the Court.

One of the problems that medical researchers in the radiation field have found is that their work is criticised by parties with strong commercial self interests. Weisberg has no such pressures. He is simply a judge doing his job.

The question for investors is what does this all mean?

In the heated discussion about whether cell phones can cause cancer it will be litigation that will ultimately determine the issue. The insurance industry understands this.

In 2010 Lloyds of London produced a paper, Electro-magnetic fields from mobile phones: recent developments, which discussed the potential for litigation. Lloyds stated:

“If EMF is proved to cause an increased risk of brain cancer it is likely the insurance industry will see claims under product liability policies for bodily injury….The issue of asbestos and its implications is widely known throughout the insurance industry, and many comparisons can be drawn with EMF – the initial impression that it was a ‘wonder product’ coupled with potential very long-term serious health issues not understood at the start of its use. Like asbestos any EMF litigation will probably be long and complex – similar issues could occur such as the definition of an actionable injury, policy triggers and apportioning liability….Should EMF prove to cause brain cancer, or any other adverse health effects, it is likely the main effect on the insurance industry will concern product liability claims for bodily injury.”

Lloyds concluded their report stating “With regards to the implication to insurance, as the current scientific evidence stands, it is unlikely that insurers will be liable for compensation for bodily injury on product liability policies. However, as asbestos has shown, new scientific developments coupled with a small number of key legal cases can change the situation very rapidly.”

Insurers have already taken Lloyds’ advice to heart by excluding coverage of radiation risks from insurance contracts.

In the meantime the debate will continue. New evidence is coming out on a regular basis demonstrating the links between cell phone use and cancer. A recent French study for example that came out in May 2014 (see links) found a positive association that was statistically significant for heavy users of cell phones considering life-long cumulative duration.

Whilst the telco industry may fight to the wall on litigation it may be employers that will ultimately bear the brunt of litigation claims.

A significant question for Wall Street firms is how they will manage this risk. Currently Wall Street firms supply and pay cell phone bills for their employees. Work is structured in such a way that it is impossible for an employee to work without a phone.

If a court determines that there is a link between cell phones and cancer we can expect that, because Wall Street has the greatest exposure, it will be first to be hit.

Compensation, which would most likely be based on lost earnings, would be significant for an industry that routinely pays out multi-million dollar bonuses.

The question is whether Wall Street is already experiencing claims? There have been high profile Wall Street executives that have passed away in recent years from aggressive brain cancers. Wall Street firms are unlikely to want to proactively disclose litigation but it is a question that should be asked.

Wall Street firms also have some tough decisions to make about managing future risk. If we were to see a change of behaviour in the way firms manage their employees’ cell phones then this may be an indication that they are aware of the problem. At least one Wall Street firm has recently moved to no longer paying cell phone bills for its employees. Employees that have been spoken to believe that this is part of a cost cutting exercise, but wider factors may be at play.

What would Gordon Gekko be doing in these circumstances? The way he was smoking those cigars he may not have made it this far to worry about it. But if he did he would no doubt be shorting his own company.

Links:

Dariusz Leszczynski – molecular biology scientist who has advised The World Health Organisation. Dariusz is currently visiting Australia giving public lectures. See his blog for details: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/

Total Smart Grid Control: “Warren Buffett Wants to Tell You When You Can Wash Your Clothes”

Bloomberg News began its recent piece on this with the slightly different line, “Warren Buffett wants to tell you the best time to wash your clothes.”But the article continues on with not just Buffett wanting to give you a friendly reminder of a more cost-effective time of day to use energy…No apparently, in conjunction with Siemens AG, Buffett’s UK Northern Powergrid Holdings Company is testing a new smart-grid system that will be able to literally take control of when a homeowner can use their appliances. They are testing quote, “a so-called smart grid that has the ability to control when consumer appliances will be used in the home.”Bloomberg is using the phrase “behavioral shift.”Hundreds of millions of smart meters have been installed all over the globe at this point. Testing of these kinds of systems is going on right now in the U.S., United Kingdom, Australia and France among others. Some smart grid projects are using smart meter systems that send signals from every outlet in a home every fifteen seconds, essentially giving anyone sitting at the grid’s control hub a complete view of every move involving energy inside a home.Flip on a light? Take a shower? Make a cup of coffee? Flush the toilet? Well under these smart grid systems, you are also making data and someone somewhere is going to know about it. If you use more electricity than your neighbors, well then, you are also a statistical outlier, something that has given police probable cause to randomly question people in the past on the basis they might be growing drugs in their home due their increased electricity usage…Kinda like that Christmas song… They know when you are sleeping, they know when you’re awake…Speaking of, they do have talking thermostats now, too. They’re supposed to be all trendy and cool. Combined with the smart grid however, and it comes off more like the super computer HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. You go to turn on your air conditioner and hear a calm voice say, “I’m afraid I can’t let you do that, Dave…”What about privacy? Like Bilderberg asked at their annual meeting last year, “does it exist?” (Obviously in this modern day and age of big data, the question was largely rhetorical.)Buffett and Bloomberg, by the way, are members of the “super friends” club that billionaire Bill Gates likes to hang out with and talk overpopulation.Smart grid technology is one more rung on the ladder to a complete technocratic slave grid where austerity and artificial scarcity rule the day.(On a side note, they want everyone on this system to “save resources” and the planet, etc., but when someone tries to go off grid and be energy efficient on their own without a smart meter being fed to a giant database somewhere, some states have made it illegal.)Delivered by The Daily SheepleContributed by Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple.Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/total-smart-grid-control-warren-buffett-wants-to-tell-you-when-you-can-wash-your-clothes_012015#sthash.I9vpXwSm.dpuf

Different studies have pointed out Navarre as one of the regions of Spain with the highest incidence rates of brain and other central nervous system (CNS) cancer. Trend analysis for cancer incidence rates for long periods of time, might help determining risk factors as well as, assessing prevention actions involved in this disease.

The objective of this study was to describe the incidence of brain and CNS cancer using data from the population-based cancer registry of Navarre, (Spain) during the period 1973-2008 and provide forecast figures up to-2014. Crude and age-standardized (world population) incidence rates of brain cancer per 100,000 person-years were calculated by the direct method separately by gender, area (Pamplona and others), and age-groups. Penalized splines for smoothing rates in the temporal dimensions were applied in order to estimate and forecast cancer incidence rates.

Age-adjusted incidence rates showed an increase over the study and forecast periods in both sexes more marked in women than in men. Higher incidence rates were observed in men compared with women but the differences became smaller with time. The increase was due to the rise of rates in the oldest age groups since the rates for younger age groups remained stable or decreased over time.

As the entire aetiology of brain and other CNS cancer is not still clear, keep promoting healthful lifestyles for cancer primary prevention among the whole population is necessary.

According to the latest brain and other nervous system cancer figures published by GLOBOCAN, 139,608 and 116,605 new cases were diagnosed in 2012 worldwide in male and female, representing 3.9 and 3.0 per 100,000 person-years [1]. Data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) publication, Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5C), Vol. X (2003-2007), show high brain cancer incidence rates in Navarre, Spain: 7.8 and 5.7 per 100,000 in male and female respectively ....

Due to the geographical differences observed for this cancer in Navarre, the area was also considered as an explanatory variable of the study. Navarre is a small region ( 644,477 inhabitants is 2011) and a third part of the population is concentrated in Pamplona (capital city) and hence most number of cases belong to the health areas of this city. Then, the observed cases were divided in two main areas: Pamplona, an urban area with more than 190,000 inhabitants (in the year 2012) and non-urban areas that correspond to the rest of Navarre ....

Table 2 shows the average annual percentage of change of overall brain cancer incidence rates. These results indicate a slight increase of rates during 1973 to 2008 by an AAPC of 0.5% (CI 95% 0.048%-1.005%). By gender, a significant increase of rates was also observed for women by an AAPC of 1.199% (CI 95% 0.187%-2.220%). The AAPC was not significant for male. The increase was also significant among 65-74 and 75+ age-groups, for which the highest AAPC were observed, 2.605% (CI 95% 1.016%-4.218%) and 5.885% (CI 95% 3.215%-8.625%) respectively.

Figure 3 illustrates trends in age-standardized cancer incidence rates from 1973 to 2008 and the predicted rates for 2014 in men and women (Figure 3A). An increasing trend was observed for both sexes, more pronounced in female than in male. Figure 3B shows the age-specific rate trends along the studied period and forecasts for 2014. For those under 64 years old slightly reduction of age-specific rates are observed for the last years of the studied and forecast periods, while for the oldest age-groups (65+) a sharp increase in rate is shown. For 2014, 78 incident cases of brain cancer are predicted.The improvement on diagnostic techniques allows a more specific diagnosis of this tumour, which could have a double effect on the trends. On the one hand, improvement of diagnostic rate could lead a better morphological classification of these cancers reducing the number of unspecific malignant neoplasms. On the other hand, these techniques have contributed to a better coding of possible brain metastases that formerly could be classified as brain tumours. This could affect the trend in the opposite direction.Some studies suggested that an exposure to electromagnetic fields or the use of mobile phones could be in association with brain cancer development. But most of the studies conclude that the association is small or non-significant. It has been also indicated that hereditary syndromes, diet and vitamins play an important role in adult brain cancers [27]. Neither diet, tobacco smoking or alcohol consumption has been found strongly associated with increased risk or protective effects for brain cancer in adults [28]. The brain cancer incidence rate has increased in recent years in the industrialized countries and survival is generally poor compared to many other cancers [29].To summarize, age-adjusted incidence rates for brain cancer showed an increase over the study and forecast period in both sexes. This increase is mainly a reflection of the increase of rates in the oldest age groups since the rates for younger age groups remained stable or decreased over time. Few causal factors are established as a brain cancer risk factor and many others have been hypothesized. In this context it is necessary to continue promoting healthful lifestyles for primary prevention among all the population of Navarre.--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., DirectorCenter for Family and Community HealthSchool of Public HealthUniversity of California, Berkeley

Videos of a recent talk, given in Gibraltar on the 7th October 2014, at a meeting excellently and elegantly organized by The Environmental Safety Group, http://www.esg-gib.n

Dear All on my mailing list,

Please, find enclosed videos of a recent talk, given in Gibraltar on the 7th October 2014, at a meeting excellently and elegantly organized by The Environmental Safety Group, http://www.esg-gib.net/, who's concerns i.a. lie on the proliferation and power of mobile phone masts in Gibraltar.

Low frequency (LF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are abundantly present in modern society and in the last 20 years the interest about the possible effect of extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs on human health has increased progressively. Epidemiological studies, designed to verify whether EMF exposure may be a potential risk factor for health, have led to controversial results. The possible association between EMFs and an increased incidence of childhood leukemia, brain tumors or neurodegenerative diseases was not fully elucidated. On the other hand, EMFs are widely used, in neurology, psychiatry, rheumatology, orthopedics and dermatology, both in diagnosis and in therapy. In vitro studies may help to evaluate the mechanism by which LF-EMFs affect biological systems. In vitro model of wound healing used keratinocytes (HaCaT), neuroblastoma cell line (SH-SY5Y) as a model for analysis of differentiation, metabolism and functions related to neurodegenerative processes, and monocytic cell line (THP-1) was used as a model for inflammation and cytokines production, while leukemic cell line (K562) was used as a model for hematopoietic differentiation. MCP-1, a chemokine that regulates the migration and infiltration of memory T cells, natural killer (NK), monocytes and epithelial cells, has been demonstrated to be induced and involved in various diseases. Since, varying the parameters of EMFs different effects may be observed, we have studied MCP-1 expression in HaCaT, SH-SY5Y, THP-1 and K562 exposed to a sinusoidal EMF at 50 Hz frequency with a flux density of 1 mT (rms). Our preliminary results showed that EMF-exposure differently modifies the expression of MCP-1 in different cell types. Thus, the MCP-1 expression needs to be better determined, with additional studies, with different parameters and times of exposure to ELF-EMF.

The study, which has received widespread media coverage, compares the number of lifetime stem cell divisions across a wide range of tissues with lifetime cancer risk and suggests that random mutations (or “bad luck”) are “the major contributors to cancer overall, often more important than either hereditary or external environmental factors.”

For many cancers, the authors argue for a greater focus on the early detection of the disease rather than on prevention of its occurrence. If misinterpreted, this position could have serious negative consequences from both cancer research and public health perspectives.

IARC experts point to a serious contradiction with the extensive body of epidemiological evidence as well as a number of methodological limitations and biases in the analysis presented in the report.

“We already knew that for an individual to develop a certain cancer there is an element of chance, yet this has little to say about the level of cancer risk in a population,” explains IARC Director Dr Christopher Wild. “Concluding that ‘bad luck’ is the major cause of cancer would be misleading and may detract from efforts to identify the causes of the disease and effectively prevent it.”

The past five decades of international epidemiological research have shown that most cancers that are frequent in one population are relatively rare in another and that these patterns vary over time[2]. For example, oesophageal cancer is common among men in East Africa but rare in West Africa. Colorectal cancer, once rare in Japan, increased 4-fold in incidence in just two decades. These observations are characteristic of many common cancers and are consistent with a major contribution of environmental and lifestyle exposures, as opposed to genetic variation or chance (“bad luck”).

Furthermore, IARC experts identify several limitations in the report itself. These include the emphasis on very rare cancers (e.g. osteosarcoma, medulloblastoma) that together make only a small contribution to the total cancer burden. The report also excludes, because of the lack of data, common cancers for which incidence differs substantially between populations and over time. The latter category includes some of the most frequent cancers worldwide, for example those of the stomach, cervix, and breast, each known to be associated with infections or lifestyle and environmental factors. Moreover, the study focuses exclusively on the United States population as a measure of lifetime risk. The comparison of different populations would have yielded different results.

Although it has long been clear that the number of cell divisions increases the risk of mutation and, therefore, of cancer, a majority of the most common cancers occurring worldwide are strongly related to environmental and lifestyle exposures. In principle, therefore, these cancers are preventable; based on current knowledge, nearly half of all cancer cases worldwide can be prevented. This is supported in practice by rigorous scientific evidence showing decreases in cancer incidence after preventive interventions. Notable examples include drops in rates of lung cancer and other tobacco-related cancers after reductions in smoking and declines in hepatocellular carcinoma rates among people vaccinated against hepatitis B virus.

“The remaining knowledge gaps on cancer etiology should not be simply ascribed to ‘bad luck’,” says Dr Wild. “The search for causes must continue while also investing in prevention measures for those cancers where risk factors are known. This is particularly important in the most deprived areas of the world, which face a growing burden of cancer with limited health service resources.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships. If you wish your name to be removed from our press release e-mailing list, please write to com@iarc.fr.

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

Cell Phones May Cause Cancer? Here Are A Few Facts To Consider

Most of us are never really far from our cell phones – they’re usually in our pockets, palms or a convenient reachable distance. However, these nifty devices are said to emit radiation that may escalate our chance of getting cancer.

Cell phones produce microwave radio-frequency radiation, which has the ability to penetrate our bodies. And multiple peer reviewed studies indicate that cell phones usage can cause cancer and other diseases.

As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), cell phones emit radio-frequency (RF) fields 1000 times greater than what is emitted from base stations. It’s obvious that this increased emission is likely to have some adverse effect on the health of users. And though there is no clear evidence that suggests that the exposure to RF fields increases the risk of cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF as a possible carcinogen in humans.

According to Time, the scientific conclusion relayed by a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries that met at the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer states that using a mobile phone may increase your risk for certain kinds of brain cancers.

The group classified cell phones in the carcinogenic category 2B, similar to chemicals like the pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust. In slightly clearer terms, that means cellphone radiation is “possibly carcinogenic” to human beings.

“A review of the human evidence of epidemiological studies shows an increased risk of glioma and malignant types of brain cancer in association with wireless-phone use,” Dr. Jonathan Samet, the chairperson of the IARC working group, stated.

It’s not clear exactly how much of an elevated cancer risk cell phone users might face, or even the biological methods by which cell phone radiation could cause brain tumors. The radiation emitted by cell phones is non-ionizing, meaning that it shouldn’t have enough energy to damage body tissue the way that ionizing — and carcinogenic — x-ray radiation can. But IARC says that the results of epidemiological studies of cell phone users indicate an association between handset use and tumors.

A ten-year long WHO Interphone study had also confirmed previous reports stating what many experts have warned – that regular use of a cell phone can significantly increase the risk of glioma by 40 percent with 1640 hours or more of use (this is about one-half hour per day over ten years). Tumors were more likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling.

“While this study is not perfect, the risks documented in it must be taken seriously as a warning to limit cell phone use, to restrict the use of cell phones, especially by children, and to call on manufacturers for redesign of cell phones and PDAs. It should also serve as a warning to governments that the deployment of new wireless technologies may bring risks to the public that are widespread, involuntary and increase long-term health care costs,” said David Carpenter, BioInitiative Report co-editor and Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany.

“The final Interphone results support findings of several research groups, including our own, that continuing use of a mobile phone increases risk of brain cancer. We would not expect to see substantially increased brain tumor risk for most cancer-causing agents except in the longer term (10 year and longer) as is the case here in the population of regular cell phone users.

“The patients included in this study were 30-59 years old, excluding younger and older users. Use of cordless phones was neglected in the analysis. Radio-frequency radiation from some cordless phones can be as high as mobile phones in some countries, so excluding such use would underestimate the risk.”

With more than four billion cell phone users around the world, the potential for a brain cancer epidemic leads experts to call for changes in cell phone design, warnings, and a ban on use by children.

Children are more at risk than adults from the effects of most toxic exposures in life, including both chemicals and radio-frequency radiation from cell phones. And experts are worried about the effects of radio-frequency radiation on the developing brain and nervous system of children.

Though there is a lot of interest surrounding the link between cell phone radiation and cancer. Cancer is only the tip of the iceberg. Microwave radio-frequency radiation exposures of the type emitted by cell phones are also linked to many other diseases and potentially life threatening illnesses, including:

sperm damage and male infertility

miscarriages

vaginal discharge

vascular system disease

tinnitus

childhood cancer

sleep problems

depression

irritability

memory loss

concentration difficulties

headaches

dizziness and fatigue

suicidal tendencies

arrhythmia

heart attacks

bone marrow interference

altered calcium level in cells

ADHD

reduction in night-time melatonin

suppression of the immune system

arthritis

rheumatism

skin symptoms

lymphatic diseases

autism

hearing problems

It is always advisable to use a hands-free device or keep the phone a few inches away from the body while making a call. Making more usage of texting and keeping mobile phones away from the body while talking can go a long way in reducing radiation. Furthermore, one should ideally use a cell phone for less than six minutes in an hour. Anything more than that affects our body.

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...